Browsing Posts published in December, 2011

This report indicates Governor McDonnell is willing to back this legislation which, if acted upon quickly can add additional Presidential candidates to the Primary Ballot.

From the article:

” “Recent events have underscored that our system is deficient,” he said in a statement. “Virginia owes her citizens a better process. We can do it in time for the March primary if we resolve to do so quickly.”

Cuccinelli’s proposal is expected to state that if the Virginia Board of Elections certifies that a candidate is receiving federal matching funds, or has qualified to receive them, that candidate will upon request be automatically added to the ballot.”

Yes. As seen by the last election, unions were supporting a candidate that was very much pro entitlement and pro expenditures. Even the ugliness of uncivil discourse and other methods were part and parcel. This cancer would affect county government and all its entities of which our quality of life and livelihoods would go right down the drain.

Look at what is now occurring in Wisconsin at this union website. My experience is most all of this is deceit and lies (and are easily checked out as I have done with a couple). Jobs are leaving the area because businesses are going bankrupt by union “gimmes”. Economies don’t turn around over night and until you get your debt settled and substantiated, you won’t see the fruits of your labor (no pun intended). The additional cost to the state and municipalities will be upward of 7 million. It cost 2.1 million on the senate recall. Where does the money come from and at what cost or benefit to Wisconsins?

What amount of money unions will throw to win this campaign is not known but I have heard as high as 170 million dollars. What? 1 million would be too much. Do they think money grows on trees? Oh, that’s right. It comes from the membership who pay it from their salaries which they get from the citizens which is ever increasing. Sounds like a racket, doesn’t it. So why do unions have all this disposable cash to piss away on elections, ads, lavishness for the hierarchy? Are they a business getting payment for work tendered? Yes and no.continue reading…

After a closer look I thought that it might be that famous “poser” we had hanging around our voting sites here in Loudoun. Then I recognized him as another conservative Republican running for president. It is none other than Rick Santorum making the rounds in Iowa before the caucus.

Rick is on the left and Eugene is on the right. Now recently, Rick has been gaining momentum in the standings and is out “hunting” for the vote. Not unlike our supervisor who is constantly “hunting” for more ways to give us excellent service. Keep an eye on Iowa. If Rick is able to pull this off, I wonder where the credit will go. I am sure the orange “craze” doesn’t hurt any!

That’s easy–conservatives do! Okay, then liberals must own liberalism. Now let’s put parties associated with these principles. FOR THE MOST PART, conservatives are Republicans, Libertarians and Constitutionalists. Likewise, liberals are Democrats, Socialists and Communists. Again, that is for the most part. What have we forgotten? Oh, yeah; moderates. What most people call moderates I call fence sitters. They reach across the aisle and vote the prevailing wind. They have no hard and fast ideology, otherwise they would fall into one of the other categories. Who do you think would be associated with moderates? Independents, of course. Independents are conservatives that are ousted by liberals or vise-versa. They are also voters who use “words” to make their decisions rather than principles. They can just as easy vote to abort babies as support the 2nd Amendment. Or promote the welfare state while calling for smaller government. TRUE Independents are a dichotomy to be reckoned with and they swing the vote every election.

When you look at other countries you will find a multitude of political parties on the ballot. Why so many? Some think plants and animals are the Earth’s priority and to hell with people. Some believe in strange deities that control their every move. Most are just sub-sets of 2 basic principles. Whatever the reason or belief, people take ownership in an ideology and usually stick with it.

You ask me what is the point of this and where am I going? Fair enough. I believe people should always show their stripes and stand on their beliefs. I also know that, for the most part, politicians are exactly that. They don’t stand on any particular ideology but for the moment and what makes them look good for electability. They worship but one god; Power and Prestige. This can be changed but it must be done with understanding and time. Voters must learn, fight the hard fight and NEVER give up their beliefs.

My point is this. We have the opportunity to evoke change. We started that change in the elections of 2010 and voters are dismayed by the slow process. It was a start. I look for the downfall of liberalism (Dems) in the 3 branches off government. You might worry about not getting all the conservatives to power but let’s just take baby steps. Once we have a majority of “pseudo” conservatives in power, the true ones that reside there will help to hold those “others” feet to the fire. This is where ELECTABILITY is important. Maybe you don’t get everything you want at first but you do get that which you DON’T want forced out of office. The next step is the key–the best candidate for the party and the people.

The party politic (be it GOP, Dem or Ind) needs to put the BEST candidate available, up for election. This means that if an incumbent is NOT as conservative as what is needed AND there is someone more suitable and available to run, THAT second candidate becomes the ticket. When the party is willing to do this, politicians are forced to make a stand on an ideology and made to tow a line. Only when this principle becomes mandate within the party will we truly have change in the political process. It takes guts and fortitude with disregard to personal consequences or favors. At that point, the voters will feel “represented” and the framers will be “vindicated”. Can it be done? Nothing is impossible under the sun. WILL it be done? That is the 64 thousand dollar question.

24 hours of “A Christmas Story” was not on this year – what’s up with that? Oh bother, it didn’t ruin our Christmas. I hope everyone had a joyous Christmas Eve and it continues through the day and may Tiny Tim’s words stay with us throughout the season.

You may not agree with Newt a lot of the time but his understanding of most things and his insight are something to be reckoned with. He is on the right track and needs to be given continual consideration for his quest. In the whole field, he is the best GOP bet to shut down the Obama machine. Forget about the gaffs. Obama administration is full of gaffers. Newt can also shut the press down when they pinpoint trivial “news bites” that detract from the ability of a better leader. Read the whole article. Our future relies on those who have insight and are willing to come forth with ideas and processes.

‘Gingrich would arrest judges,” scream the headlines. You’d think he’d proposed some crazy, unconstitutional crackdown on federal judges. Instead, Newt Gingrich’s position paper, “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution,” has a set of controversial but thoughtful proposals for reining in judicial activism.

These include calling judges before Congress to explain their decisions, impeaching judges or eliminating courts that consistently get the Constitution wrong, and limiting the applicability of Supreme Court decisions that distort the Constitution. They’ve been dismissed as violations of the Constitution’s separation of powers. The criticisms are overblown. All are constitutional if carefully implemented and constrained to the appropriate circumstances.

For example, Congress routinely asks executive branch officials outside the White House to testify about their decisions. It occasionally subpoenas them to compel attendance, and arrest would be a last resort. It’s unclear why applying the same rules to the judicial branch threatens the separation of powers, especially if done in the context of considering judicial reform proposals like Mr. Gingrich’s. Subpoenaing Justices of the Supreme Court, the only court created by the Constitution, is a possible exception.